In his column, Pearlman composes a mock story by "Joe Schmoe," a fictional writer who, apparently, doesn't realize that the cool kids are supposed to hate Bonds. In fact, poor Schmoe is so out of the loop that Pearlman lists his affiliation as "Baseball Suckup".
Schmoe's sin? Pearlman has him writing this:
After years of alienation, Barry Bonds seems to be having more fun than ever. Now nearing the end of his career, he appreciates the game like never before, and has attacked spring training with a renewed vigor.
"You can just see the difference," says Biff Sniff, a Giants teammate. "Barry is relaxed and at ease. He's just one of the guys."
Hacky? Absolutely. Misinformed? Probably. But Suckup? Suckup? Hardly.
Pearlman, of course, wrote "Love me, Hate me: Barry Bonds and the Making of an Antihero". And he's certainly no stranger to the Giants' anti-social superstar in his ESPN.com Page 2 columns. So, naturally, he's often at the head of the Bonds-as-enemy-of-humanity bandwagon -- more vitriol toward the erstwhile left fielder equals more cash in his pocket.
But neither that nor the fact that he's at least tried to avoid the kneejerk righteous indignation that plagues sports writing in other circumstances seems to explain why his mindset in his latest column is to call anyone who doesn't bash Bonds a "Suckup." We get it -- he cheated. We get it -- he seems to try every year to rehab his image in Spring Training, only to quit as soon as the first pitch is thrown in San Francisco. We get it -- he's a bad dude, and people don't like him. Really, though: Does the world need another "BARRY BONDS SUCKS!" story? Do we really not have enough? Misguided as the attempt may be, is anyone who attempts to show another side of the slugger a Suckup, as long as he tries honestly?
This applies to all writers, on all levels. I cover MLS' New England Revolution, and I don't like all of the players on a personal level. I think a few of them are jerks, and I know the feeling is shared with others in the press box. Some of us have pointed it out in print. What's the point, though, in simply piling on with more "He's mean and doesn't like to talk to me" columns? It's no more original than writing about how Barry Bonds is ruining baseball and should be banned.
As long as the attempt is honest, there's nothing wrong with trying to find another angle on a difficult story. Of course players' personalities should come through in print -- that's why we're in the locker room in the first place. But, positive or negative, every story that's told (and overtold) enough times becomes hackneyed and cliche. And, once something has been done to death, it's our job to do something different. Chastising a writer for daring to try something different (again, as long as it's truthful and real) is counterintuitive at best, and harmful to sports journalism at the worst.
2 comments:
I'm not a writer, but I studied journalism in college and I disagree strongly. At some point, there is no "other side" to be found. Bonds is a dickhead SOB. I live in the Bay Area, and Perlmans' right—every year idiot writers come out with "Barry's changed" stories. The guy never changes--it's all bull----.
So while I get youre point, i can't agree.
I get yours, too.
Bonds himself is as bad as it gets -- he isn't decent to anybody, let alone the press. But, if someone legitimately thinks he's changed, or has something from someone that says something other than "Bonds is a total jerk!", he shouldn't be called names for writing it.
If someone were to write exactly what Pearlman's caricature does, though, he deserves everything but the names. Like I wrote, that's a hack story (and, sadly, that's what a lot of people write).
Post a Comment